We posted about this case involving tribal leaders at Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians earlier this year. The government has been able to convict one of the tribal leaders — Michelle Campbell — for failing to file a tax return (campbell-conviction). Priscilla Hunter’s trial is scheduled for April 2009.
Northern District of California
Second Update on Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon
Here is the response brief to the motion to dismiss (here): opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss
And here is the main oil company reply brief: oil-company-reply-brief
And one from Shell Oil: shell-reply-brief
And, of course, here is the complaint that started it all.
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Update
Here is the motion to dismiss the complaint, from the oil companies. As expected, the key arguments regard the causation issue and the lack of a federal common law cause of action.
Legal Analysis of the Kivalina v. Exxon Case
From Marten Law Group:
Threatened by Rising Seas, Native Village Seeks Lifeline in Federal District Court
By Dustin Till
Several lawsuits have been filed in federal district court asserting that large emitters of greenhouse gases are responsible for rising sea levels and other harms attributable to global warming. In one of the latest attempts to hold greenhouse gas producers responsible for alleged climate change impacts, a coastal Native village in Alaska recently filed a federal lawsuit alleging that twenty oil, coal, and electric utility companies are responsible for thinning sea ice and increased storm surges that are forcing the village to relocate.[1] In Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al., the village of Kivalina alleges that the defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions constitute a nuisance under both federal and state law, and seeks to recover monetary damages up to $400 million for the costs of relocating the entire village. Kivalina also alleges that certain defendants conspired to create a misinformation campaign designed “to deceive the public about the science of global warming,” and that the defendants’ civil conspiracy contributed to the town’s injuries. [2]
Previous nuisance lawsuits seeking relief for climate change impacts under federal common law have, so far, been unsuccessful. At least three federal district courts, including the same California federal court where the Kivalina case is pending, have dismissed similar lawsuits on grounds that they presented political questions over which the courts had no jurisdiction.[3] As a result, federal courts have yet to address the merits of climate change nuisance claims – including the potentially vexing issue of causation. The defendants will undoubtedly raise similar jurisdictional challenges, and if prior litigation is any guide, the Kivalina plaintiffs face an uphill battle to recover the costs of relocating their sinking village.
Salon: Exxon Should Be Target for Liability in Kivalina Case
From Salon:
Conspiracy theory in the frozen North
In Finland, the warmest winter on record is leading to predictions for a record grain harvest. Yay for global warming! See, adaptation can be fun. There’s never been a better time to invest in beach front property in Siberia.
However, Agriculture Ministry researcher Anneli Partala warns: “It is not certain whether the warm winter is good or bad … there may be mold problems or diseases.”
Or, as in the case of the Alaskan town of Kivalina, rising sea levels could force your complete relocation, to the tune of $400,000,000. Adaptation — extremely costly and painful!
NYTs Article on Native Village of Kevalina vs. Exxon Suit
From the NYTs:
SAN FRANCISCO — Lawyers for the Alaska Native coastal village of Kivalina, which is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate, filed suit in federal court here Tuesday arguing that 5 oil companies, 14 electric utilities and the country’s largest coal company were responsible for the village’s woes.
The suit is the latest effort to hold companies like BP America, Chevron, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy and the Southern Company responsible for the impact of global warming because they emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases, or, in the case of Peabody, mine and market carbon-laden coal that is burned by others. It accused the companies of creating a public nuisance.
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Complaint
The Native Village of Kivalina sued Exxon and a host of others over global warming, alleging that their village will be destroyed by rising ocean waters.
Here is the complaint.
U.S. v. Hunter et al. — IGRA Criminal Case — Coyote Valley
United States v. Hunter, No. 06-565 (N.D. Cal.), is an unusual case. In 2001, it appears that the National Indian Gaming Commission investigated the improper expenditure of Indian gaming revenues by tribal council members at Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians. They reached a settlement and consent decree (attached as Exh. A to Deft. Crabtree’s Motion to Dismiss below).
In short, tribal council members allegedly continued their bad behavior — using gaming revenues to buy first class plane tickets, donate to political causes, and other uses. The US then brought a criminal case, alleging violation of IGRA (as a criminal matter) when these council members (Hunter et al.) spent gaming revenues on political causes and first class tickets.
What?!?!
Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria (9th Cir.) Materials
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by a class represented by Pearl Alvarado that they are entitled to membership in the Table Mountain Rancheria. The Ninth Circuit did not address the tribe’s claim of sovereign immunity, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Turtle Talk 